I thought they already had this information honestly. Really, what are they going to do that they haven't already?

To the best of my knowledge, the government had a samplem but not a census. This is using the technical definition of "census" to mean having knowledge of all possible data points (in this case, knowing every person's salary).

Which is mostly stupid, since the difference between going from a large sample to a census isn't terribly high. At best, they might show statistical significance in the technical sense (almost surely--when you have a census, variance is zero); however, this doesn't prove a whole lot. There is a difference between women's wage and men's wage; but the specifics of what cause it are complicated that mapping the individual salaries probably will not help. For example, educational backgrounds matters a lot and there's significant differences in what men and women study in colleges and vocational schools, differences which their present-day employers cannot control.

It's strange, there are reasons for wages gaps, it's called "who wants to put in massive OT for more money" I'm in the middle of shifting careers and you know what, I've moved over to a job that has a shitload more women in the field than before. Things are really fucking different, everything from hours people are willing to work to a massive benefit upgrade, and less "duties" I mean, I am not even allowed to check the air in the tires of the company vehicles.

I'm taking a paycut, I'm working less hours. I will be home more. These are choices I made.

There are recent studies that strongly suggest that more women are now attending college than men, of those who attend a higher percentage of women graduate, and that women thirty and under right now make more on average than men thirty and under. To my knowledge there has not been any scientific investigation into the reasons behind these shifts, though I suppose one could make some educated guesses from what data has been collected. There is a slight wage gap for the whole of the workforce that still favors men even accounting for every factor we have data for. The best studies I had seen went further to calculate ranges that would account for other suspected factors. The conclusions suggested the gap was less than ten cents on the dollar. Combined with the trends mentioned in the first part, I'm not sure this is a major issue for most sectors, it seems to be correcting itself (possibly over-correcting if those trends continue). Further legislative intervention could skew things the other way.

There are recent studies that strongly suggest that more women are now attending college than men, of those who attend a higher percentage of women graduate, and that women thirty and under right now make more on average than men thirty and under. To my knowledge there has not been any scientific investigation into the reasons behind these shifts, though I suppose one could make some educated guesses from what data has been collected. There is a slight wage gap for the whole of the workforce that still favors men even accounting for every factor we have data for. The best studies I had seen went further to calculate ranges that would account for other suspected factors. The conclusions suggested the gap was less than ten cents on the dollar. Combined with the trends mentioned in the first part, I'm not sure this is a major issue for most sectors, it seems to be correcting itself (possibly over-correcting if those trends continue). Further legislative intervention could skew things the other way.

Mostly agreed. Consad ( http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf ) and others have examined the U.S. Department of Labor statistics and found that the actual gap is not even 10%, but somewhere between 4.3% to 7.1%. This difference takes into account men and women in the same field, job position, total hours worked, number of children, and the frequency at which unpaid leave is taken, but does not take into account seniority, salary negotiation, and other factors. (In other words, it's more precise but still not spot on.)

Completely agreed about further legislative intervention possibly skewing things the other way, as is the case in the United Kingdom, where women (26-40) now out-earn their male counterparts. (I have NOT seen this statistic for the U.S., but you could very well be right. I'd have to see some statistics supporting it before I agree, though.)

When I first learned of the wage gap my initial thought was that it sounded like a pretty sucky social phenomenon if true, but I was curious about the whys and wherefores, so I went digging. In the end the data convinced me that the issue was not nearly as significant as touted. I was also surprised to learn that prominent figures plugging for certain social agendas were routinely quoting very outdated studies and data. The more recent info about the trends sealed the deal for me. I like data and evidence. Especially when I get to see white papers and evaluate the methods used and see info on their sources. I don't like politicians, soundbites, or most of the media. I do think that there are still issues of sexism in our society, but it seems to me like they aren't being effectively addressed and instead the related social movements are off tilting at windmills like the proverbial Don. The issues that do exist do not unilaterally affect one sex either, both sexes are impacted and it seems like a more holistic approach would benefit society and both genders far more. Women are a bit more expensive to employ quite often because of benefits they often draw on more heavily than males do (including benefits in some cases that aren't even available to men). Obviously this will vary from case to case, but much like males on average cause more dollars in damage with automobiles (and thus cost more to insure) it is a populational trend. It might be beneficial to push socially for and possibly to incentivize, for example, paternal leave. That would help to balance the equation between the two sexes and would likely help to reduce some of what little gap does exist. True egalitarianism might prove beneficial by solving problems from multiple angles at once.

As has been proven time and time again, the disparity in earning between men in general and women in general is not due to some patriarchal conspiracy, but due instead in large part to the difference in jobs that men and women tend to choose. To a small degree, it's also because women tend to negotiate their salaries less than men do.

Any way you slice it, a woman doing the same job as a man, with the same knowledge, background, experience, and seniority in employment will earn the same amount. The "$0.77 to a man's dollar" bullshit was an aggregate statistic that merely reflected the earning status of "men with degrees" versus "women with degrees," and completely ignore that women choose idiotic low-paying fields (for example, "Gender Studies") more often than men, and that women in general choose NOT to go into high-paying (and necessary) STEM fields.

This initiative by Obama wouldn't be anything to worry about, since that disparity doesn't exist, except that Obama will now be under pressure to "correct" the "wage gap," and so that he can show results, he's obviously going to scream "misogyny" at the first company that shows any disparity in earnings, regardless of the actual reasons.

Remember, "Equal opportunity" does not mean "equal outcome." With the rise of socialism in this country, not sure of people can even tell the difference anymore.

I'm in favor of this.

Has some downsides. Mainly everyone is gonna be bitching but it's another chip can use.

Not knowing what your work is worth is the best way to get screwed over, and it Just shows how ridiculous the amount the execs make. Oh, BTW. Illegal immigrants are only at fault for being so easily abuseable to the companies that hire them, which should really make you stare daggers at the companies that hire them and why the corporations and companies are not being punished and fined for these practices. Or, at least make laws that make such actions a civil and human rights violation, and actually enforce them. The illegals should just be documented and given temporary worker's visas (or citizenship if they've been here for 20 years or so) and not deported since that is one of the things they fear happening to them. Otherwise, you're not going to get many willing to help law enforcement, and they'll continue to devalue the labor at the benefit of the top.

There is no reason someone else should know what you make at your company*

....its not illegal. Its already mandatory for companies to disclose some salary information.

Keeping wages confidential between employees is typically a clause in employee contracts to prevent employees from comparing notes to see whose getting screwed over. It benefits no one except the company itself. At my former company they added a payroll confidentiality clause to our NDAs specifically to prevent comparisons after they lowered the entry level wage and to hide the wages of people such as myself who had come from a different company that they bought out. As our wages were higher for the same positions but they couldn't paycut us.

Of course the more they insisted through memos and what not that no one was allowed to talk about what they made, the more it made every talk about what they made. With my own position alone the two others who technically held the same job title as me were making almost 50% less than I was. While some of the people who actually outranked me were not making any more than me.

Was great for morale =p

sarteckwrote:
If I started my own business, "Sarteck Industries," and I chose to employ only my family, would that be considered racist?

Let's say that I hired on some people outside my family, but I gave my family members raises a hell of a lot more often just because they're my family, and not because of actual merit.

Would that fall under pay discrimination?

Can I seriously not choose who to pay more, for whatever reason I want?

Would this shit that Obama is doing affect me, if that was a true scenario? (Of course, I'd have to have a company size of at least 100 employees, since those are the only businesses being looked at.)

On a somewhat related note, does this include franchise owners that employ only 7 people, since the franchise itself is so huge?

1) No, the word you are looking for is nepotism.
2) No, nepotism is not technically illegal and is a fine American tradition. -.-
3) You can pay whomever you like whatever you like as long as you do not discriminate against a protected class. Civil liability is another matter however.
4) See #3
5) Half the point of franchising is to insulate the parent company from the liability of its franchisees. I doubt it would affect them much. Franchise businesses are far more likely to have set wages for set positions with no room for negotiation.